anger

A recent court case in California could have long reaching implications for Second Amendment rights and the way firearms can be sold to the public.
The case, Teixeira v. County of Alameda, has not gotten a lot of attention, but could drastically impact the ability of individuals to sell firearms in private party sales. As it stands, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision is a victory for those who wish to limit gun and firearm sales.
In the case, an individual wanted to open a full-service firearms shop; the intended location fell into a zone that required a conditional permit. In this location, a conditional permit is needed to open a gun shop near a school, daycare, residential area, liquor store or other firearms location. In short, the current law makes it very difficult to open a facility at all, since pretty much every location in the county is near one of the outlawed facilities or near a residential neighborhood.
The business owner challenged the ordinance, but was struck down by the court. Both the original decision and the appeal ruled in favor of the county, restricting the shop owners second amendment rights. As the plaintiff and business owner pointed out, restricting their ability to open a shop at all also prevented local citizens from purchasing firearms, potentially impacting their Second Amendment rights as well.
Should the plaintiff wish to appeal, the case could be heading to the U.S. Supreme Court, where justices would address whether the county’s ordinance and the court ruling were truly constitutional. The argument that prospective customers might not be able to buy firearms is not at the heart of the case; there are other gun shops nearby — the county could be infringing upon the owner’s Constitutional rights.
California’s 9th Circuit is already well-known for supporting laws and rulings that limit the rights of gun owners. In recent years, the court has upheld restrictive concealed carry laws and with this recent case, restricted the rights of business owners as well. Will this be the case that requires the Supreme Court to weigh in and clarify what rights individuals have to sell firearms and establish businesses under the Second Amendment?
As more and more locales seek to restrict rights, particularly in Democrat led areas, it may be time for the highest court in the nation to make rulings that clarify the protections the Constitution holds for law abiding citizens.

They’ll just keep battering away at common-sense language until nothing means what it says. Much as the Communists do with rights.

In an unsurprising turn, officials in the District of Columbia have decided to continue to defend their near total ban on the right to bear arms. On Thursday (published August 25), D.C. filed a petition for rehearing en banc with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in the combined cases of Grace v. D.C. and Wrenn v. D.C. As we reported last month, the D.C. Circuit struck down the District’s restrictive handgun permitting law that required applicants to show a “good” or “proper” reason for needing to carry a concealed handgun. Under this system, D.C. officials have denied all but a few applicants their right to carry a firearm for personal protection.

(Zero Hedge) President Trump was crucified by the mainstream media a few weeks back after hosting an improvised press conference and saying there was “blame on both sides” for the violence in Charlottesville that resulted in the death of a counterprotester. The comments resulted in most of Trump’s advisory councils being disbanded, as CEO’s around the country pounced on the opportunity to distance themselves from the administration, and heightened calls from CNN for impeachment proceedings.

The problem is that while Trump’s delivery probably could have been a bit more artful, the underlying message seems to be proving more accurate with each passing day and each new outbreak of Antifa violence.

As Politico points out today, previously unreported FBI and Department of Homeland Security studies found that “anarchist extremist” group like Antifa have been the “primary instigators of violence at public rallies” going back to at least April 2016 when the reports were first published.

Federal authorities have been warning state and local officials since early 2016 that leftist extremists known as “antifa” had become increasingly confrontational and dangerous, so much so that the Department of Homeland Security formally classified their activities as “domestic terrorist violence,” according to interviews and confidential law enforcement documents obtained by POLITICO…

Previously unreported documents disclose that by April 2016, authorities believed that “anarchist extremists” were the primary instigators of violence at public rallies against a range of targets. They were blamed by authorities for attacks on the police, government and political institutions, along with symbols of “the capitalist system,” racism, social injustice and fascism, according to a confidential 2016 joint intelligence assessment by DHS and the FBI…

A new Oregon gun control law was recently passed by the governor in an attempt to establish Extreme Risk Protection orders. The governor, who signed the bill with no comment remarked previously that the new law was the, “best way to ensure that a person who is at risk of harming themselves or others is identified, while still ensuring their rights are protected by a court review.”Unfortunately, the law is a far cry from being protective of individual gun owners’ rights as it allows police to confiscate a valid owner’s firearm without providing them with their day in court before the confiscation occurs. While those affected by the law would have a right to be heard in court, the owner would not be able to appeal their rights in court until after they have been revoked.
In essence, the law is multi-faceted allowing police officers to confiscate a gun owner’s weapon if the police, a family member, or close friend reports that they pose a risk to themselves or others. Once the order is established by the court, the individual will be prevented from buying firearms or ammunition for the duration of a year, and the police will have the right to seize the owner’s weapons or require them to be stored with a gun dealer for the duration of the order.
While this new law was created to reduce the risk of firearm related suicides that has been on the rise in recent years, it is doing it at the expense of law-abiding citizen’s rights and requires them to prove that they are not a danger to themselves or others. This situation could cause many well-meaning family members and friends to have their loved one’s rights stripped from them for something that may be no more than an unfounded concern or an attempt at revenge.
In the United States, a citizen has the right to due process, which requires that a person is informed of the crime they are being charged with as well as the rights they are entitled to during the criminal process. After they are informed, they may be temporarily detained until they are seen by a judge. The proceedings will then proceed to trial and a sentencing phase if convicted, but during this entire process, a citizen’s rights may not be limited until they are convicted and sentenced in a court of law.The new Oregon law SB 719A will have citizens subject to the restriction of rights based on suspicion or presumption. It is then their responsibility if they want those rights back to schedule a hearing and prove they deserve them, in essence violating some of the most important laws that established the founding of this country.
In addition to the fact that the law will allow citizens to be stripped of their 2nd amendment right to bear arms before they are granted the right to due process, it will also put the determination of one’s mental state and intention in the hands of people that are not qualified in the mental health field or even have the tools to make a valid determination on one’s mental health. Quite simply we have mental health professional make these types of assessments because they are the ones who are properly trained to do so.The new law also provides gun restriction requirements for those who have had a restraining order filed against them by a significant other as well as allowing the indefinite delay of gun sales to be completed. The previous law gave the state three days to determine whether or not a gun purchase could go through. With the new law, this period could be extended indefinitely, which in effect will inhibit a citizen’s right to obtain personal protection.
While the intentions of the new gun confiscation law in Oregon may have started with good intentions, to achieve the desired results, the state is allowing law-abiding citizens to be stripped of their rights without due process and proper assessment. The new law will end up having more citizen’s in court explaining why they deserve their rights instead of the court system fighting to protect the rights of their citizens.

Video shows Utah nurse screaming, being handcuffed after refusing

to take blood from unconscious victim

Alex Wubbels, a nurse at University Hospital in Salt Lake City, was arrested after explaining to police that she couldn’t draw a blood sample from an unconscious person. A Salt Lake City police detective asked for a blood sample. After explaining to the detective that the police needed a warrant, consent from the unconscious patient or that the patient needed to be under arrest before the blood sample could be drawn, she was arrested.

Apparently numerous State court decisions have determined taking blood from an an unconscious person without permission is illegal (without a warrant?) and this has been further reaffirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

One would assume this officer (and ALL officers) should know this!

The latest I read about this is punitive measures will be taken against the officer involved.

This is of great personal interest to me. After the accident of March 18, 1995 (this court decision was not yet in effect) both me and my 12-year-old daughter were subjected to involuntary blood draws, while we were unconscious!

The guy who hit our car (who was uninjured) was NOT subjected to any blood test, as the responding officer didn’t think it necessary!

(LifeZette) The U.N. issued an “early warning” Wednesday for the United States, urging that the government take immediate action to confront white supremacy following the violence in Charlottesville, Virginia.

Photo by sanjitbakshi

But the warning and call for the U.S. government to act contained a little-noticed last paragraph, urging the U.S. to make sure that the “rights to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly” are not exercised to deny rights or freedom to others and pressing the U.S. government to “ensure that such rights are not misused to promote racist hate speech and racist crimes.”

But as many legal scholars have noted, there is no hate-speech exception to the First Amendment; that is, the government cannot limit a person’s speech because it is considered hateful towards any person or group.

The United Nations hasn’t been valid for years. Maybe it’s never been valid. Many of the international wars have been started or escalated by the U.N., which seems to have few teeth when it comes to individual liberties.

Politics works in mysterious ways. The more firearm regulations former President Obama tried to push through Congress, the higher gun sales became. Obama himself was lampooned as “the best gun salesman on the planet” by some industry insiders.
Obviously, the threat of overbearing regulation has faded in the era of the Trump administration. While one may think that a loosening of the reins would encourage more gun sales, the exact opposite has occurred. Gun stocks are down, and so are profits.
What is the explanation?For all of his bluster, Obama was actually able to do very little about regulating firearms during his time in office. Yes, he was successful in bolstering the amount of total background checks processed. However, the Congress blocked all of his traditional legislation on the issue, and his Executive Orders addressing the topic have been all but completely overturned.
As it turns out, Americans were buying more guns on the threat of gun regulation rather than on any actual policy. Because Americans thought that certain types of rifles and add-ons such as sidearm silencers would soon be difficult or impossible to get, they stocked up. With Trump, there is no talk of gun regulation. Second Amendment rights advocates are no longer in a frenzy thinking that gun rights will disappear in the near future, so the new additions to the cache can wait.
The second factor that may account for a drop in gun sales is a level of satiety in the market. When Americans stocked up on guns during Obama’s term, they really stocked up. Contrary to popular belief, the modern American under Trump believes that they have enough guns – for now.The Trump slump is a serious issue for the firearms industry. Mid America Armament gun show sales have dropped 50%, with total sales down about 25% from Obama administration years. The former Smith & Wesson, now known as the American Outdoor Brands Corporation, had its stock price drop significantly on election day. Sturm Ruger faced similar losses in its stock price.
Financial analysts predicted firearm sales would take a hit as far back as November. Learn why in the video below.
~ Firearm Daily

“When in danger or in doubt, run in circles scream and shout!” (from a 1920’s Naval Academy magazine)

We political gun folks seem to become apoplectic when those in power even suggest possible gun control legislation. But we become complacent when the people in power seem to support gun rights.

Not so fast, there, Bucko! Historically, there have been a number or Republicans (Conservatives?) in power who signed in legislation which was antithetical to the Constitution, and that which is near-and-dear to us.

(Matthew Vadum, Bombthrowers.com) Racial arsonist Al Sharpton is demanding the federal government shut down the historic Jefferson Memorial in the nation’s capital because the long-dead president honored by the monument owned slaves.

Al Sharpton Photo by Elvert Barnes

Thomas Jefferson, America’s third president, the man who wrote the justly revered Declaration of Independence, is also the man who penned this noble sentence: “I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” Perhaps he was thinking of future Al Sharptons when he wrote it.

Boiled down, this is a case where one of the most important, heroic, inspirational, intellectually robust, accomplished, and beloved figures in American history is under assault by one of the most repulsive, cowardly, sociopathic, intellectually deficient, unaccomplished, and despised figures in American history.

It was President John F. Kennedy who said at a White House dinner honoring a cohort of Nobel Prize winners from across the Western hemisphere:

I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered together at the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.

“Someone once said that Thomas Jefferson was a gentleman of 32 who could calculate an eclipse, survey an estate, tie an artery, plan an edifice, try a cause, break a horse, and dance the minuet,” Kennedy said April 29, 1962. (…)

We need to recognize previous generations, their leaders, generals and Presidents trying to make this nation survive, were living within the confines of their times. General Grant owned slaves; General Lee did not. Yet both were men of honor. Jefferson was a genius who more than doubled the size of the United States and her territories. And yes, he owned slaves, and may have fathered children with one (there is evidence it might have been one of his brothers!)

Let’s stop throwing the baby out with the bathwater!

Recognize them for their accomplishments, but remember their mistakes.

Kennedy was a womanizer and drug user. Johnson fathered an illegitimate child. Jackson committed genocide against certain Indian tribes, but fought afterward to give then aid. But kept the Republic budget balanced, and with no debt and no national bank!

(Henry Rodgers, Daily Caller News Foundation) CNN published a story Wednesday calling “ordinary” supporters of President Donald Trump white supremacists and blaming them for the violence that occurred in Charlottesville, Va.

CNN Writer/Producer John Blake (CNN screen shot)

“‘White supremacists by default‘: How ordinary people made Charlottesville possible,” CNN blamed Trump voters of helping advance white supremacy, saying the non-racist, “ordinary” Trump voters are giving white supremacists room to operate and are the reason violence erupted in Charlottesville.

“It’s easy to focus on the angry white men in paramilitary gear who looked like they were mobilizing for a race war in the Virginia college town. But it’s the ordinary people — the voters who elected a reality TV star with a record of making racially insensitive comments, the people who move out of the neighborhood when people of color move in, the family members who ignore a relative’s anti-Semitism — who give these type of men room to operate,” CNN’s John Blake wrote, crediting one other professor and “others” for contributing to the story.

You know I’m not a big fan of the President. I am also not a fan of ad hominem attacks (even though in my catagories and tags, I refer to the subject of this article as idiots. 😛 )

But painting everyone who supported the President with such a broad brush is ridiculous! And just wrong. Every Trump supporter I know is not a White supremacist, just as every Hillary supporter I know is not a communist.